Imagine you view footage: one man is constantly moving into the personal space of another, his body language is aggressive and domineering. the other man is backing up with his hands raised in as passive posture. After a moment the second man suddenly strikes the aggressive one with the heel of his palm straight into his chin, knocking him off his feet. The striker quickly backs away moving off camera.

There are witnesses most of them say there was an argument and that guy knocked the other down. but one or two of them said they heard the man, who struck, say several times that he didn't want to fight.

You're a member of the jury, keeping in mind reasonable doubt, do you vote the man guilty of assault, or do you except his claim the he acted preemptively in self defence.I'm just curious as to the results.

Looks like you are getting the results which could be statistically expected on an MA forum. It might be more interesting, and accurate to ask the same question of the 'general public' rather than on a MA forum as there will be a tendency towards less bias.

More information would be needed and provided in an actual court case, but Base your judgement on just the info provided, it is true that in an actual court case you will be presented with a couple of hours of testimony. But I thought I'd save you from that.

Quote:Looks like you are getting the results which could be statistically expected on an MA forum. It might be more interesting, and accurate to ask the same question of the 'general public' rather than on a MA forum as there will be a tendency towards less bias.

You know my thoughts anyway

MC.

exactly what I thought so I've posted it on 3 other SD/MA forums on a dog breeders forum, an aussie car forum and the Traci Harding "Trazling" site (fantasy/scifi readers may know who that is)

Not guilty. Firstly, he backed off. Secondly, he put up a fence, indicating he did not want a confrontation. Thridly, he stated (by some accounts) that he did not want to fight. Fourthly and most importantly he did not indicate that he wanted to fight or harm his opponent by continuing to fight after the initial strike. If he had wanted to fight or harm his opponent, he would have kicked him while he was lying on the floor. Finally, he left the scene after the incident, indicating that he was concerned primarily about his personal safety and not about causing harm to other people.

I want to see the results of this poll when you get them back from the other forums.

I have heard from many a martial arts instructor that you should ALWAYS loudly yell out "I don't want to fight" when in an altercation (in order to get the witnesses to report this in the event of an actual fight). I should also note that a bully who starts fights could do the same thing (so, saying "I don't wanna fight is NOT always definitive when assessing one's true intentions).

In order to vote on this fact pattern, I need more info (such as whether either of those involved has a history of violent acts/ fights, the level of fight training the striker has- is he a martial arts master, where he may have had more options other than a palm-heel strike, and the amount of damage done to the other party)

Bear in mind that during an altercation, we can not expect even the most experienced martial arts master to have the time to weigh the level of force required precisely. Hence, some leeway should be given to account for the threatening nature of the situation. In UK self defense law, the general principle is:

Quote:If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

If this case ended up in a court room, then the man defending must have seriously injured or killed the aggressor. If your pre-emptive strike leaves no long lasting effects, you won't be in a court room. So don't kick out their knee, and don't punch them in the throat. If your trapped with no where to go, and the aggressor is not responding to verbal communication, a groin strike or a front kick to the stomach to gain access to safety would suffice. You would never see a court room with a jury.

_________________________
If your in a "Fair Fight", your tactics suck.